[arch-dev-public] rc.d files, unmaintained packages - and the quality of our repositories

Gaetan Bisson bisson at archlinux.org
Tue Jul 16 07:39:03 EDT 2013

[2013-07-16 13:12:19 +0200] Thomas Bächler:
> However, now netcfg has been readded to community in the exact same
> state as the package that was originally removed:
> * It does not work properly with systemd.
> * There is no init system in our repositories that it works with.
> * It actually re-added rc.d files to our repositories, although we had a
> TODO list recently to explicitly remove those (and btw, they depend on
> files that no longer exist in our repositories, like /etc/rc.d/functions
> and /etc/rc.conf).
> I am really confused about the decision to re-add this and I am
> seriously considering if we should talk about stricter guidelines for
> adding packages and - in particular - the quality of our packages.

I doubt guidelines would help. It should be pretty obvious to any
responsible packager that re-adding a deprecated package violating
recent TODO lists is a bad idea. If we really need to spell this out
(with an exhaustive list of obvious things responsible developers should
not do), then we have bigger problems.

In this particular case, we should hear what Connor has to say and make
sure (one way or another) that this type of problem will not happen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20130716/9b326f13/attachment-0001.asc>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list